Notices by MatthewToad43 (matthewtoad43@climatejustice.social)

@JamesDBartlett3 @aral Many charities have wholly owned for-profit subsidiaries. Either to raise funds or to provide services. Or even sometimes to avoid rules on getting too involved in politics.

@aral @neurovagrant Why does it have to be government money? That is almost as precarious as taking Google's search money!

Whole global news gathering organisations are funded in large part through donations and largely optional subscriptions.

There are questions over how much of Mozilla's budget is actually necessary, of course, if the argument is that only the search engines can pay the amounts needed. They have a huge surplus.

@neurovagrant @aral I would welcome suggestions on this. Maintaining a modern web browser is hard, even Microsoft uses Chrome. And Google is demonstrably far more evil than Mozilla. Most notably because it is Google who is now pushing the old TCPA "remote attestation" nightmare, not (or as well as) Microsoft.

If you have a better alternative than Firefox I'd love to hear about it.

@godofbiscuits @CWilbur @CelloMomOnCars @hembrow @breadandcircuses Bikes don't work because:

1) There aren't enough bikes, so the traffic isn't used to them,

2) There aren't enough bike lanes, and especially segregated bike lanes,

3) Because of dysfunctional housing policy and/or urban sprawl, only well off single people live close enough to their workplace to cycle there.

All of these problems are solvable, but they're not easy to solve. They require both political fights and construction work.

Also, plenty of people need a car/van because they need to carry a wheelchair or equipment for work etc.

@empiricism @godofbiscuits @CWilbur @CelloMomOnCars @hembrow @breadandcircuses Agreed. But it requires major changes to both behaviour and infrastructure. As such, it will take time and has a significant ecological footprint.

@empiricism @godofbiscuits @CWilbur @CelloMomOnCars @hembrow @breadandcircuses Sure, but the question is whether we're one of the species that manages to reach equilibrium and slowly decline to fit the available niche ... or one of the species that overstretches the ecosystem it depends on and is wiped out.

Much more likely the latter at this point.

@empiricism @CStamp @CWilbur @godofbiscuits @CelloMomOnCars @hembrow @breadandcircuses Are there?

Behaviour change is important. But it's not enough. Inappropriate technology is deeply embedded across our entire society. And we can't feed everyone, provide medical needs etc without some sort of technology.

System change fast. That's always been the only option, certainly for the last 10 years or so.

Individuals, especially less privileged individuals, cannot choose to live sustainably. They can make some impact with their choices, but those choices are often limited by their means. The whole system needs to change and it needs to change fast.

@empiricism @CStamp @CWilbur @godofbiscuits @CelloMomOnCars @hembrow @breadandcircuses Individuals are only able to change their behaviour if they have power.

Powerless individuals' behaviour is substantially dictated by those who have power over them.

If public transport does not exist you cannot use it. If it is not accessible for your disability you cannot use it either. If you have no money you cannot buy a heat pump. And so on.

System change! Behaviour is a *collective* problem not an individual one. And the collective acts primarily through influencing the state to change both the law and the provision of services.

PS This is not an excuse for individuals behaving in an unethical way. We all have choices. But the choices we have are limited by our circumstances and marginalization. Behaviour change alone is insufficient to resolve the climate crisis.